theos and ho theos'
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sat Mar 3 02:00:02 EST 2001
In a message dated 3/1/2001 5:11:42 AM Central Standard Time,
tremaine at exploremaine.com writes:
>
> To all with interest,
> The fact that the word theos' in its second occurrence is without the
> definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek
> is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John
> 1:1, "The Word was God," do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a,
> an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous
> predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus, at John 6:70, JBand KJ both
> refer to Judas Iscariot as "a devil," and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus
> as "a prophet."
> Melinda
>
>
This little discussion jogged a memory from my seminary days so I got out and
dusted off my venerable copy of C.F.D. Moule _An Idiom Book of New Testament
Greek_. On pp. 115, 16 he discusses this very question. He states,
"7. Much more recently, E.C. Colwell has made important observations on the
matter. He formulates and supports with evidence a rule 'to describe the use
of the article with definite predicate pronouns in sentences in which the
verb occurs. (1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article.
(2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change in word-order: (a)
definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order)
usually take the article; (b) definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article; (c) proper names regularly lack the article in the
predicate; (d) predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the
verb whether or not they have the article' (p. 20)."
"The bearing of 2 (b) above on certain famous problems becomes immediately
obvious; for instance (as Colwell himself points out) Matt. xxvii. 54 ALHQWS
QEOU hUIOS HN hOUTOS may, after all mean . . . the Son of God, the
omission of the article not necessitating the translation a Son of God.
Similarly it may the demands of this idiom , and not any intention to convey
a distinction in meaning, which create a contrast such as that between Matt.
xiii. 37 hO SPEIRWN . . . ESTIN hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU and John v.27 hOTI
hUIOS ANQRWPOU ESTIN (cf. under 'Semitisms' II. vi.below, p. 177). More
striking still is the application of this canon to the much debated John i.
1. Is the omission of the article in QEOS HN hO LOGOS nothing more than a
matter of idiom? Middleton had already taken it as an instance of the article
being omitted simply because QEOS is 'the Predicate of a Preposition which
does not reciprocate'. Similarly Stauffer in T.W.N.T. III. 106 speaks of the
omission of the article as merely grammatically conditoned ('grammatisch
bedingt'); and he notes John viii. 54 QEOW hHMWN ESTIN, II Cor. v. 19 QEOS HN
EN XRISTWi KOSMON KATALASSWN hEAUTWi as predicate uses of QEOS without the
article. "
In your note regarding the APPARENT inconsistency with regard to John 6.70
and 9.17 as 'a devil' and 'a prophet' respectively, it must be evident that
this is NOT AT ALL AN INCONSISTENCY but is rather an application of the rule
since neither DIABOLOS nor PROFHTHS is a DEFINITE predicate noun.
There is really NO FRONTING (a very infelicitous description in my opinion --
what's it fronting for?). This is simply the NORMAL ORDER (see the quotation
above). A further note, in addition to Stauffer's observations quoted by
Moule above, QEOS may function as a substitute for or a representation of the
tetragrammaton and would therefore be consider to be definite. If so, it is
not entirely 'sui generis.' Therefore, Jn. 1.1 must be understood as "the
Word WAS (=) God" whereas Jn 6.70 must be understoo as one of you is A devil"
and Jn. 9.17 as "He is A prophet."
I must therefore opine than 'nihil obstat' except for the facts.
gfsomsel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20010303/3b2ba322/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list